Bush vetoed the health insurance bill citing its cost of $35 billion over 5 years, while the Iraq War has cost cost us over $400 billion and it's still rising.
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
2007-10-03 04:07:57 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I see no reason for the federal government to be taking more taxes and handing out more "free" stuff. That was never meant to be the function of federal government. This insurance bill was a Democratic proposal to provide free health coverage to children in families earning up to $83,000 a year. Funny how this bill would have increased taxes on people who it considered impoverished enough to qualify for welfare.
The Iraq war, like it or not, is part of the larger war against the radical Islamic terrorists who have been at war with us for decades. Funding a war is the function of our federal government, it was voted on and approved by our congress, (Democrats and Republicans).
People in this country who are truly living in poverty get the assistance they need when they need it. Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Financial Aid for education.
There is no reason to expand our welfare system to include those who can afford to support themselves, that is Socialism.
2007-10-03 04:24:50 · answer #1 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
that is so sad, if you see what is going on in Iraq then yourself will decide to give up ur insurance and support the people of iraq www.auxsupport.com
2014-05-08 08:12:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's health insurance because the Iraq war is doing nothing positive for us. It is causing increased security problems and there isn't a political solution because the Iraqi government doesn't want one. They are not ready. They have no incentive to be ready. They don't care. They went on vacation. There are inappropriate times to take a vacation.
How unelightened some people are. Just because you can afford to pay for your health care needs now doesn't mean that you will always be able to do so. There are a lot more contract workers now and they don't get health insurance subsidized. It's very expensive without the subsidy. Companies exploit contract workers. Contract is supposed to mean temporary work but I don't call a contract employee that works a year or more temporary. The laws have changed so now these workers can be laid off and some other poor soul will follow suit. Health care needs for all is necessary due to our economic situation. Jobs have become less stable. I'm 33 and on my 3rd career already. I'm working towards a 4th one. Is this by choice? No. It's because I am smart, intelligent, and want to do something more meaningful. Being bored at work really sucks. I'm better than that. I can do a lot more. I know that there are a lot of people like me out there because I have worked with at least some of them. We have resources that are not being tapped with our current system. It's so incredibly wasteful and short-sighted. Having a national health care system (get rid of insurance. it's such a waste.) makes sense in our current times. Everyone should be covered with a reasonable cost. It is to our benefit. Some people will take advantage but they aren't smart and probably wouldn't contribute much anything and besides they are covered now and don't do anything so nothing would change! People that work aren't going to stop working because health insurance is covered. That is bs. It should help to reduce how much we pay for our health care needs now. The war in Iraq is wasting huge resources for nothing. Our politicians are worthless human beings that don't deserve anything they have because they have done nothing for us. However, there are exceptions and we should be pulling for them because it benefits us.
2007-10-03 14:21:41 · answer #3 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
we will always need to provide health coverage for our families and our children and it is necessary for a healthy economy and a future where people will be able to pursue their dreams instead of being enslaved by employers out of need for health care. how come every member of government is good enough to have the best health insurance for themselves and their families, but the rest of the country is not? How could they say "we don't want it?"
2014-12-12 13:55:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom.
Fighting terrorists in Iraq preserves my freedom, and the freedom of 25 million Iraqis.
Enslaving 300 million Americans in a government health monopoly costs me and every American our freedom. Monopolies are bad, why would you want the government (guys with guns and jails) to have a monopoly on your health? That just stupid.
2007-10-03 11:18:24 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Look get your facts straight, Schip is not health care for all. It extends health care coverage to children in low income families. The current bill extends this to middle income families. It is a backdoor attempt to socialize medicine.
2007-10-03 11:13:19 · answer #6 · answered by The Slick Meister 2 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Health Insurance, hands down.
2007-10-03 11:15:54 · answer #7 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
we won't have to worry about health care if we don't win in Iraq.. This country will be distroyed by other countries.
2007-10-03 11:20:59 · answer #8 · answered by tiny b 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I can provide my own health-care insurance with hard work. I can not wage war against Islamic Fascist who mean to destroy the western world (and my children for that matter) on my own. So I will work to obtain health-care insurance on my own and trust my government to protect my way of life and the lives of my children by waging war when necessary.
2007-10-03 11:16:03 · answer #9 · answered by Lt Col Killgore 2 · 6⤊ 5⤋
if we lose the war on terror,you will not need health insurance.
2007-10-03 11:19:29 · answer #10 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋